-
BioMed Research International 2018To assess the effectiveness of peer inclusion in interventions to improve the social functioning of children with ADHD. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness of peer inclusion in interventions to improve the social functioning of children with ADHD.
METHODS
We searched four electronic databases for randomized controlled trials and controlled quasi-experimental studies that investigated peer inclusion interventions alone or combined with pharmacological treatment. Data were collected from the included studies and methodologically assessed. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies met eligibility criteria. Studies investigated interventions consisting of peer involvement and peer proximity; no study included peer mediation. Most included studies had an unclear or high risk of bias regarding inadequate reporting of randomization, blinding, and control for confounders. Meta-analyses indicated improvements in pre-post measures of social functioning for participants in peer-inclusive treatment groups. Peer inclusion was advantageous compared to treatment as usual. The benefits of peer inclusion over other therapies or medication only could not be determined. Using parents as raters for outcome measurement significantly mediated the intervention effect.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence to support or contest the efficacy of peer inclusion interventions for children with ADHD is lacking. Future studies need to reduce risks of bias, use appropriate sample sizes, and provide detailed results to investigate the efficacy of peer inclusion interventions for children with ADHD.
Topics: Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Humans; Parents; Peer Group; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29744363
DOI: 10.1155/2018/7693479 -
BMC Medicine Nov 2015Systematic reviews are popular. A recent estimate indicates that 11 new systematic reviews are published daily. Nevertheless, evidence indicates that the quality of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic reviews are popular. A recent estimate indicates that 11 new systematic reviews are published daily. Nevertheless, evidence indicates that the quality of reporting of systematic reviews is not optimal. One likely reason is that the authors' reports have received inadequate peer review. There are now many different types of systematic reviews and peer reviewing them can be enhanced by using a reporting guideline to supplement whatever template the journal editors have asked you, as a peer reviewer, to use. Additionally, keeping up with the current literature, whether as a content expert or being aware of advances in systematic review methods is likely be make for a more comprehensive and effective peer review. Providing a brief summary of what the systematic review has reported is an important first step in the peer review process (and not performed frequently enough). At its core, it provides the authors with some sense of what the peer reviewer believes was performed (Methods) and found (Results). Importantly, it also provides clarity regarding any potential problems in the methods, including statistical approaches for meta-analysis, results, and interpretation of the systematic review, for which the peer reviewer can seek explanations from the authors; these clarifications are best presented as questions to the authors.
Topics: Humans; Peer Review
PubMed: 26521692
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-015-0509-y -
Systematic Reviews Sep 2022The support provided by people with the same condition, including inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), has the potential to improve a range of psychosocial outcomes by...
BACKGROUND
The support provided by people with the same condition, including inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), has the potential to improve a range of psychosocial outcomes by allowing people with the disease to receive emotional support as well as to learn coping strategies from more experienced peers. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence on peer support interventions and their effectiveness on people with IBD.
METHODS
Bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, grey literature, and clinical trial registers were searched from inception to November 2021. Comparative and single-arm studies that evaluated interventions that were solely or contained in part peer support, for people with IBD and/or their carers of any age and in any setting were included. Effectiveness was evaluated using outcomes relating to physical and psychosocial function, disease control and healthcare utilisation. Data for each outcome were tabulated and presented in a narrative synthesis. Study design specific tools were used to assess risk of bias. Study selection and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two reviewers independently.
RESULTS
Fourteen completed studies and five ongoing studies met the inclusion criteria. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the studies in relation to the intervention type and peer support was usually part of a wider intervention. All but one study analysed the total effect of the intervention, so it was not possible to fully isolate the effect of the peer support alone. The appropriateness of outcomes and outcome measurement tools for the assessment of effects was a further key issue. As such, overall, no significant evidence of beneficial effects of peer support interventions on quality of life and other psychosocial outcomes was found.
CONCLUSIONS
New randomised controlled trials designed to isolate the effects of peer support are needed to evaluate the (net) effects of peer support only. Agreement on the outcomes to be targeted, and the choice of reliable and validated measurement tools for standalone peer support interventions would provide a focus for further intervention design and evaluation.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
The protocol was accepted in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO CRD42020168817).
Topics: Caregivers; Chronic Disease; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Quality of Life
PubMed: 36096828
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-022-02064-6 -
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical... Sep 2023Core components of peer-to-peer (PTP) support for cancer survivors include informational, emotional, and psychosocial aspects. Previous literature on peer support in... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Core components of peer-to-peer (PTP) support for cancer survivors include informational, emotional, and psychosocial aspects. Previous literature on peer support in cancer includes both professionally and peer-led support. Our objective was to summarize studies on the effects of non-professionally led PTP support in cancer.
METHODS
We performed a systematic research on studies in PTP support of adult cancer survivors with an interventional design, comparing outcomes of PTP support against any control. We included all studies with a precise definition of a PTP support, published from January 2000 up to March 2023 in peer-reviewed journals in English or German.
RESULTS
Out of N = 609 identified publications, we were are able to include n = 18 randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) fulfilling our inclusion criteria. Main settings were dyadic support via telephone, face-to-face (FTF), and web-based online support. Most common outcomes were distress, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and quality of life (QoL). Overall, we found only small effects of PTP support on depression/anxiety, coping, or sexual functioning. Beneficial effects associated with the PTP intervention were apparent in particular in BRCA, in FTF settings, and in assessments of cancer-specific QoL outcomes.
CONCLUSION
This review shows that there are a few RCT investigating the effect of PTP support with short-term effects. Overall, there is a need for more RCTs with high methodological standards to evaluate the effectiveness of PTP support.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Depression; Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Anxiety; Survivors
PubMed: 37120782
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-023-04753-8 -
RoFo : Fortschritte Auf Dem Gebiete Der... Feb 2021To estimate the human resources required for a retrospective quality review of different percentages of all routine diagnostic procedures in the Department of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the human resources required for a retrospective quality review of different percentages of all routine diagnostic procedures in the Department of Radiology at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Three board-certified radiologists retrospectively evaluated the quality of the radiological reports of a total of 150 examinations (5 different examination types: abdominal CT, chest CT, mammography, conventional X-ray images and abdominal MRI). Each report was assigned a RADPEER score of 1 to 3 (score 1: concur with previous interpretation; score 2: discrepancy in interpretation/not ordinarily expected to be made; score 3: discrepancy in interpretation/should be made most of the time). The time (in seconds, s) required for each review was documented and compared. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to calculate the total workload for reviewing different percentages of the total annual reporting volume of the clinic.
RESULTS
Among the total of 450 reviews analyzed, 91.1 % (410/450) were assigned a score of 1 and 8.9 % (40/450) were assigned scores of 2 or 3. The average time (in seconds) required for a peer review was 60.4 s (min. 5 s, max. 245 s). The reviewer with the greatest clinical experience needed significantly less time for reviewing the reports than the two reviewers with less clinical expertise (p < 0.05). Average review times were longer for discrepant ratings with a score of 2 or 3 (p < 0.05). The total time requirement calculated for reviewing all 5 types of examination for one year would be more than 1200 working hours.
CONCLUSION
A retrospective peer review of reports of radiological examinations using the RADPEER system requires considerable human resources. However, to improve quality, it seems feasible to peer review at least a portion of the total yearly reporting volume.
KEY POINTS
· A systematic retrospective assessment of the content of radiological reports using the RADPEER system involves high personnel costs.. · The retrospective assessment of all reports of a clinic or practice seems unrealistic due to the lack of highly specialized personnel.. · At least part of all reports should be reviewed with the aim of improving the quality of reports..
CITATION FORMAT
· Maurer MH, Brönnimann M, Schroeder C et al. Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 160 - 167.
Topics: Abdominal Cavity; Feasibility Studies; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Mammography; Peer Review; Quality Assurance, Health Care; Radiography; Radiologists; Radiology; Research Report; Retrospective Studies; Specialty Boards; Switzerland; Thorax; Time Factors; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Workload
PubMed: 32698235
DOI: 10.1055/a-1178-1113 -
BMC Public Health Mar 2015Prisoners experience significantly worse health than the general population. This review examines the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer interventions in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Prisoners experience significantly worse health than the general population. This review examines the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer interventions in prison settings.
METHODS
A mixed methods systematic review of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, including qualitative and quantitative synthesis was conducted. In addition to grey literature identified and searches of websites, nineteen electronic databases were searched from 1985 to 2012. Study selection criteria were:
POPULATION
Prisoners resident in adult prisons and children resident in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs).
INTERVENTION
Peer-based interventions.
COMPARATORS
Review questions 3 and 4 compared peer and professionally led approaches.
OUTCOMES
Prisoner health or determinants of health; organisational/process outcomes; views of prison populations.
STUDY DESIGNS
Quantitative, qualitative and mixed method evaluations.
RESULTS
Fifty-seven studies were included in the effectiveness review and one study in the cost-effectiveness review; most were of poor methodological quality. Evidence suggested that peer education interventions are effective at reducing risky behaviours, and that peer support services are acceptable within the prison environment and have a positive effect on recipients, practically or emotionally. Consistent evidence from many, predominantly qualitative, studies, suggested that being a peer deliverer was associated with positive effects. There was little evidence on cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
There is consistent evidence from a large number of studies that being a peer worker is associated with positive health; peer support services are also an acceptable source of help within the prison environment and can have a positive effect on recipients. Research into cost-effectiveness is sparse.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO ref: CRD42012002349.
Topics: Adult; Child; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Counseling; Health Education; Health Promotion; Humans; Male; Prisoners; Prisons; Self-Help Groups; Social Support
PubMed: 25880001
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-1584-x -
JCPP Advances Jun 2022Peer adversity and aggression are common experiences in childhood and adolescence which lead to poor mental health outcomes. To date, there has been no review conducted...
BACKGROUND
Peer adversity and aggression are common experiences in childhood and adolescence which lead to poor mental health outcomes. To date, there has been no review conducted on the neurobiological changes associated with relational peer-victimisation, bullying and cyberbullying.
METHODS
This systematic review assessed structural and functional brain changes associated with peer-victimisation, bullying, and cyberbullying from 1 January 2000 to April 2021. A systematic search of Psychoinfo, Pubmed, and Scopus was performed independently by two reviewers using predefined criteria. Twenty-six studies met the selection criteria and were considered for review.
RESULTS
The data collected shows altered brain activation of regions implicated in processing reward, social pain, and affect; and heightened sensitivity and more widespread activation of brain regions during acute social exclusion, most notably in the amygdala, left parahippocampal gyrus, and fusiform gyrus, associated with victimisation exposure. In addition, victimised youths also demonstrated greater risk-taking behaviours following acute social exclusion showing greater ventral striatum-inferior frontal gyrus coupling, activation in the bilateral amygdala, orbital frontal cortex (OFC), medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), temporoparietal junction (TPJ), medial posterior parietal cortex (MPPC) and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC), suggesting greater social monitoring, seeking of inclusion, and more effortful cognitive control. The studies included participants from a very broad developmental age range, mostly using cross-sectional measure of peer-victimisation exposure, at varying developmental stages.
CONCLUSIONS
This review highlights the need for more neuroimaging studies in cyberbullying, as well as longitudinal studies across more diverse samples for investigating gender, age, and developmental interactions with peer-victimising. This also brings to attention the importance of addressing bullying victimisation particularly in adolescence, given the evidence for social stress in heightening developmentally sensitive processes which are associated with depression, anxiety, and externalising symptoms.
PubMed: 37431463
DOI: 10.1002/jcv2.12081 -
BMC Psychiatry Jun 2021Peer support is being integrated within mental health services to further the development of a recovery approach. However, the most effective models and formats of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Peer support is being integrated within mental health services to further the development of a recovery approach. However, the most effective models and formats of intervention delivery are unknown. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of peer support for improving outcomes for people with lived experience of mental health conditions, when delivered as group interventions.
METHODS
Studies reporting randomised controlled trials of group peer support interventions for people experiencing mental health conditions were identified by searching MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL, from inception until July 12th 2019 and undertaking supplementary searches. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias and meta-analyses were conducted if three or more trials provided usable data.
RESULTS
Eight trials met eligibility criteria, providing data from 2131 participants. Six trials had either high or unclear risk of bias. Interventions were categorised as mutual support groups, or peer support groups, sub-categorised as anti-stigma or self-management interventions. Meta-analyses were only possible for peer support groups and five outcomes. We found evidence that group peer support may make small improvements to overall recovery but not hope or empowerment individually, or to clinical symptoms. Evidence for effectiveness for outcomes which could not be meta-analysed was mixed.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings from the few eligible trials suggest group peer support interventions may be specifically effective for supporting personal recovery and have a limited impact on other outcomes, though there were some risks of bias to study findings. Interventions were heterogeneous and most social outcomes were absent in the literature, highlighting further limitations to the current evidence-base. There is insufficient evidence available from trials of group peer support torecommend the routine implementation of these interventions across mainstream mental health services at present. More high-quality trials of peer-developed, group peer support interventions are needed in order tomake firm conclusions about intervention effectiveness.
Topics: Counseling; Humans; Mental Disorders; Mental Health; Mental Health Services; Peer Group
PubMed: 34162340
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-021-03321-z -
BMC Psychiatry Feb 2014Little is known about whether peer support improves outcomes for people with severe mental illness. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Little is known about whether peer support improves outcomes for people with severe mental illness.
METHOD
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Cochrane CENTRAL Register, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched to July 2013 without restriction by publication status. Randomised trials of non-residential peer support interventions were included. Trial interventions were categorised and analysed separately as: mutual peer support, peer support services, or peer delivered mental health services. Meta-analyses were performed where possible, and studies were assessed for bias and the quality of evidence described.
RESULTS
Eighteen trials including 5597 participants were included. These comprised four trials of mutual support programmes, eleven trials of peer support services, and three trials of peer-delivered services. There was substantial variation between trials in participants' characteristics and programme content. Outcomes were incompletely reported; there was high risk of bias. From small numbers of studies in the analyses it was possible to conduct, there was little or no evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on hospitalisation, overall symptoms or satisfaction with services. There was some evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on measures of hope, recovery and empowerment at and beyond the end of the intervention, although this was not consistent within or across different types of peer support.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the promotion and uptake of peer support internationally, there is little evidence from current trials about the effects of peer support for people with severe mental illness. Although there are few positive findings, this review has important implications for policy and practice: current evidence does not support recommendations or mandatory requirements from policy makers for mental health services to provide peer support programmes. Further peer support programmes should be implemented within the context of high quality research projects wherever possible. Deficiencies in the conduct and reporting of existing trials exemplify difficulties in the evaluation of complex interventions.
Topics: Adult; Counseling; Female; Humans; Male; Mental Disorders; Mental Health Services; Peer Group; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Social Support
PubMed: 24528545
DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-14-39 -
Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2020To evaluate the survival rate, tissue response, and patient satisfaction of different attachments used in implant overdenture. (Review)
Review
AIM
To evaluate the survival rate, tissue response, and patient satisfaction of different attachments used in implant overdenture.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic search of peer-review articles published between 2001 and 2019 assessing the attachments used for implant-supported overdentures was done according to PRISMA Guidelies. The review evaluated sixteen articles related to survival of the attachments, the reaction of the soft and hard tissues along with repair and maintenance of the attachments, and overall performance of the overdenture attachments.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED
There is statistically significant heterogeneity (Q =374.7403, df = 15, and < 0.0001). The statistics of fixed-effect model reported an MD of - 0.0880 (95% CI = -0.1536; 0.0225).
RESULT
The review evaluated the 16 articles that met with the inclusion and search criteria. The studies were the combination of bar and ball attachments and their subtypes, magnetic and bar attachments, and locator in combination with other attachments. The meta-analysis of combined 16 studies reported acceptable heterogeneity among 16 studies (I 2 = 96%) and reported to be statistically significant ( < 0.01).
CONCLUSION
The survival rate of attachments was in the range of 95.8%-97.5% for bar, 96.2%-100% for ball, 90%-92% for magnet and locator attachments were in the range of 97% after a mean follow-up period of 3 years. The bar attachments reported moderate tissue reaction in the form of mucosal changes, gingival inflammation, and bone resorption. The locator attachments require higher maintenance and repair. The magnetic attachments produce higher bone resorption and readily displace under functional force. Patient satisfaction and compliance was higher for ball, locator, and bar attachments as well as low for magnetic attachment. Thus, the ball and locator attachments excellently perform in terms of survival rate, tissue response, and patient satisfaction.
PubMed: 33223695
DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_368_19